APHC010330042019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1048/2019 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., ...APPELLANT AND Ch Mohana Siva Jaya Ram Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VENKATESH The Court made the following: 2 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is preferred questioning the order dated 18.04.2019 in MVOP No.169 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District and Special Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 02.02.2016, in which the moped bearing registration No.AP16 CM 6032 belonging to the 2nd respondent was involved. 4. It was the case of the petitioner that he was aged 61 years old and was working as clerk in Ayyappa Cloth Stores at Gudivada and used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. The entire salary was being contributed to the maintenance of his family. It was further averred in the claim petition that he was hale and healthy as on the date of accident. It was further averred that on 02.02.2016 at about 08.20 p.m., while he was returning to home after completion of work, when he reached near SPS Municipal High 3 School, the 1st respondent, the rider of the moped, came from behind and dashed the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained multiple fractures. 5. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Gudivada, for treatment. A case in Crime No.27 of 2016 was registered under Section 338 IPC against the 1st respondent/rider of the moped. Later, the same was investigated into and charge sheet was filed on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada. 6. It was further averred in the claim petition that on the advise of the doctors, the petitioner was admitted in Kamineni Hospitals, Vijayawada, for better treatment and after examination by Dr.Ch.Pavan Kumar, it was found that the petitioner sustained fracture to his right leg long bone. Subsequently, surgery was conducted to petitioner’s right leg and he was treated in the said hospital as inpatient for a period of 10 days. It was further stated that the petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged with an advice to take follow-up treatment as an out-patient. It was further contended that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was incurred towards follow-up treatment and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was incurred for taking physiotherapy treatment. In view of the injuries sustained by 4 the petitioner, the above petition came to be filed against the respondents. 7. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The 4th respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit. It was the case of the 4th respondent that the motor cycle belonging to the 2nd respondent was not insured with the 4th respondent and it was contended that, in such circumstances, the question of payment of compensation by the 4th respondent does not arise. Inter alia, it was also contended that the claim made by the petitioner was excessive. It was further stated that the 1st respondent, rider of the moped, did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. With the above pleadings, the 4th respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, he was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.K.V.S.Satyanarayana was examined as P.W.2. The petitioner also got marked documents in Exs.A1 to A5, and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through P.W.2. On the other hand, respondents examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked documents in Exs.B1 to B5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal, by impugned order, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- (Rupees one lakh and six thousand only), together 5 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, by fastening liability on respondent Nos.1 to 4. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent-Insurance Company preferred present appeal. 9. Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-claimant. There is no appearance for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Insofar as respondent No.4 is concerned, the leaned counsel for the appellant filed memo vide USR No.63209 of 2019, and the same was taken on record by this Court and the appeal was dismissed as against respondent No.4 by order dated 08.01.2020. 10. Perused the material available on record. 11. The only contention raised in the appeal is that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, inasmuch as the offending moped was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. In support of its contention, the appellant got examined employees of its own company as R.Ws.1 and 2. A perusal of the evidence adduced by them, it is clear that nothing was placed on record, including the list of policies issued by the appellant company as on the date of accident. Further, nothing prevented the appellant company from producing cogent evidence to substantiate its plea that it did not issue any insurance policy as 6 against the offending moped. Though copies of Exs.B1 to B3, notices said to have been issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3, are filed, thereafter, no further steps were taken by the appellant-Insurance Company so as to prove that the offending moped was not insured with it. In the absence of any material available on record, the Tribunal, after careful considering the case of the petitioner, had come to the conclusion that the appellant/Insurance Company miserably failed to prove its contention. Further, a perusal of the order under challenge, the Tribunal has given categorical finding in that regard. Though learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submits that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, in the absence of any material to show that the offending vehicle was not insured that the appellant, the contention of the appellant cannot be countenanced and this Court does not find any merit in the appeal to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Further, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.07.08.2026 JLV 8 36 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA.No.1048 OF 2019 Date: 07.08.2026 JLV